new owner questions

> Hal,
>
> Now I'm going to demonstrate how pedantic I am.
>
> I have been participating in this forum for 10 years and can't remember ever reading about a frame that failed because it was light
> weight.
>
> I use the email system and have folders for particular systems I checked my Frame folder and found stuff about rust damaged frames
> but nothing about frames that bent from bring too weak.
>
> Yep, Dan Stuckey's replacement frames are "beefier" as were the frames Clarence Buskirk used for his 29 foot stretches.
>
> The GMC was designed by a team of professional automotive engineers, each with specialties, they "ran the numbers" and designed a
> frame that met the requirements of the vehicle. I wonder if anyone that frequents this forum has the capabilities to do the same.
>
> In my mind we're "tinkerers" (at least I am) with varying skill levels, I've seen your GMC and it is awesome.
>
> Regards,
> Rob M.
> Sydney, Australia

Rob,

I do not believe that a GMC frame has ever been reported to have failed in service unless it was compromised by damage or corrosion.

I do have first hand anecdotal:
Frank Sargent was ex-GM. He started Therford and was still buddies with lots of important GM people. He got one of the early coaches. It was taken
back to the local GM truck dealer for some warranty work. The people at the truck dealership picked the coach up with some kind of a truck lift.
Things didn't work out well. My personal information is a little sketchy here. I am not sure if the door could now not be opened or close....

GM sent a low boy or a Landoll to take it away. I know it was not repaired and returned because I was detailed to go to Pontiac and retrieve the
replacement. While technically routed through Red Holman, I picked up at GM Truck and Coach and brought it back to Dexter (a city west of Ann Arbor).
I might have considered purchasing same, but that one had a sticker that was close to that of my recently acquired house.

Matt
--
Matt & Mary Colie - '73 Glacier 23 - Members GMCMI, GMCGL, GMCES
Electronically Controlled Quiet Engine Cooling Fan
OE Rear Drum Brakes with Applied Control Arms
SE Michigan - Twixt A2 and Detroit
 
As I stated Rob, the frame is 'adequate' but certainly not robust in any stretch of the imagination. When you only have three locations you are
permitted to jack from without damaging the frame and it WILL damage it, my advise to beware of unknowing repair facilities seems well founded. Look
under any slant nose Revcon if you want to see a really nice durable frame.
And as to GM engineers, aren't they the folks that brought us some of the world famous Vega's non sleeved aluminum motors, TH200,TH700 transmissions,
4.3 liter,5.7 liter diesels, faulty ignition switches, et nauseam?
And I'm just a 'tinkerer' as you-and thanks for the kind words on our coach. Keep smiling Rob, :)
Hal

> Hal,
>
> onstrate how pedantic I am.
>
> I have been participating in this forum for 10 years and can't remember ever reading about a frame that failed because it was light
> weight.
>
> I use the email system and have folders for particular systems I checked my Frame folder and found stuff about rust damaged frames
> but nothing about frames that bent from bring too weak.
>
> Yep, Dan Stuckey's replacement frames are "beefier" as were the frames Clarence Buskirk used for his 29 foot stretches.
>
> The GMC was designed by a team of professional automotive engineers, each with specialties, they "ran the numbers" and designed a
> frame that met the requirements of the vehicle. I wonder if anyone that frequents this forum has the capabilities to do the same.
>
> In my mind we're "tinkerers" (at least I am) with varying skill levels, I've seen your GMC and it is awesome.
>
> Regards,
> Rob M.
> Sydney, Australia
> AUS '75 Avion - The Blue Streak TZE365V100428
> USA '75 Avion - Double Trouble TZE365V100426
> USA '77 Kingsley - TZE 267V100808
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gmclist [mailto:gmclist-bounces] On Behalf Of Hal StClair
> Sent: Sunday, July 16, 2017 12:18 AM
> To: gmclist
> Subject: Re: [GMCnet] New Owner Questions
>
> Rob, I still say it's flimsy-it may be adequate but it's still really light weight. Replacement's are dramatically beefier.
> Hal
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GMCnet mailing list
> Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
> http://list.gmcnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gmclist_list.gmcnet.org

--
1977 Royale 101348,

1977 Royale 101586, Diesel powered,

1975 Eleganza II, 101230

1974 Eagle Bus 45',w/slideout
 
"What we have here is a failure to communicate..." Or more correctly a difference in semantics. My take is the frame is obviously adequate in that
the coaches have lasted this long. It is however much lighter than I'd like... it flexes and is easily bent. I am of the opinion that GM chassis
engineers lightened it as much as possible. They were overloading the drive line roughly twice what it was originally intended fir so they took out
what they could. I'd like to drive one of the reframed coaches to see how much a stiffer frame improves the handling, if any.

--johnny
--
76 26' Eleganza(?) with beaucoup mods and add - ons.
Braselton, Ga.
"I forgive them all, save those who hurt the dogs. They must answer to me in hell" - ol Andy, paraphrased
 
Having a spare frame in my yard for a few years, and moving it around with my tractor, it amazed me how flexible it is. The frame easily twists if you try lifting from a corner. The body & frame when combined, work together as a system. I doubt that you would notice much handling difference (if any) between a thicker Stuckley frame and a factory OEM setup.

Les Burt
Montreal
'75 Eleganza 26'

>
> "What we have here is a failure to communicate..." Or more correctly a difference in semantics. My take is the frame is obviously adequate in that
> the coaches have lasted this long. It is however much lighter than I'd like... it flexes and is easily bent. I am of the opinion that GM chassis
> engineers lightened it as much as possible. They were overloading the drive line roughly twice what it was originally intended fir so they took out
> what they could. I'd like to drive one of the reframed coaches to see how much a stiffer frame improves the handling, if any.
>
> --johnny
> --
> 76 26' Eleganza(?) with beaucoup mods and add - ons.
> Braselton, Ga.
> "I forgive them all, save those who hurt the dogs. They must answer to me in hell" - ol Andy, paraphrased
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GMCnet mailing list
> Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
> http://list.gmcnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gmclist_list.gmcnet.org
 
Discussing the frame's stiffness in isolation from the aircraft-style body
construction is sort of a futile exercise. Undoubtedly the combination of
the two was more than just adequate, even though it obviously left the
frame less robust than we might like in some aspects -- 40 years later.

Ken H.

> Having a spare frame in my yard for a few years, and moving it around with
> my tractor, it amazed me how flexible it is. The frame easily twists if you
> try lifting from a corner. The body & frame when combined, work together as
> a system. I doubt that you would notice much handling difference (if any)
> between a thicker Stuckley frame and a factory OEM setup.
>
> Les Burt
> Montreal
> '75 Eleganza 26'
>
>
> > On Jul 16, 2017, at 8:55 AM, Johnny Bridges via Gmclist <

> >
> > "What we have here is a failure to communicate..." Or more correctly a
> difference in semantics. My take is the frame is obviously adequate in that
> > the coaches have lasted this long. It is however much lighter than I'd
> like... it flexes and is easily bent. I am of the opinion that GM chassis
> > engineers lightened it as much as possible. They were overloading the
> drive line roughly twice what it was originally intended fir so they took
> out
> > what they could. I'd like to drive one of the reframed coaches to see
> how much a stiffer frame improves the handling, if any.
> >
> > --johnny
> > --
> > 76 26' Eleganza(?) with beaucoup mods and add - ons.
> > Braselton, Ga.
> > "I forgive them all, save those who hurt the dogs. They must answer to
> me in hell" - ol Andy, paraphrased
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > GMCnet mailing list
> > Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
> > http://list.gmcnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gmclist_list.gmcnet.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> GMCnet mailing list
> Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
> http://list.gmcnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gmclist_list.gmcnet.org
>
 
On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 9:43 AM, Ken Henderson
wrote:

> Discussing the frame's stiffness in isolation from the aircraft-style body
> construction is sort of a futile exercise. Undoubtedly the combination of
> the two was more than just adequate, even though it obviously left the
> frame less robust than we might like in some aspects -- 40 years later.
>
> Ken H.
>
>
>

>
> > Having a spare frame in my yard for a few years, and moving it around
> with
> > my tractor, it amazed me how flexible it is. The frame easily twists if
> you
> > try lifting from a corner. The body & frame when combined, work together
> as
> > a system. I doubt that you would notice much handling difference (if
> any)
> > between a thicker Stuckley frame and a factory OEM setup.
> >
> > Les Burt
> > Montreal
> > '75 Eleganza 26'
> >
> >
> > > On Jul 16, 2017, at 8:55 AM, Johnny Bridges via Gmclist <

> > >
> > > "What we have here is a failure to communicate..." Or more correctly a
> > difference in semantics. My take is the frame is obviously adequate in
> that
> > > the coaches have lasted this long. It is however much lighter than I'd
> > like... it flexes and is easily bent. I am of the opinion that GM
> chassis
> > > engineers lightened it as much as possible. They were overloading the
> > drive line roughly twice what it was originally intended fir so they took
> > out
> > > what they could. I'd like to drive one of the reframed coaches to see
> > how much a stiffer frame improves the handling, if any.
> > >
> > > --johnny
> > > --
> > > 76 26' Eleganza(?) with beaucoup mods and add - ons.
> > > Braselton, Ga.
> > > "I forgive them all, save those who hurt the dogs. They must answer to
> > me in hell" - ol Andy, paraphrased
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > GMCnet mailing list
> > > Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
> > > http://list.gmcnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gmclist_list.gmcnet.org
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > GMCnet mailing list
> > Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
> > http://list.gmcnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gmclist_list.gmcnet.org
> >
> _______________________________________________
> GMCnet mailing list
> Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
> http://list.gmcnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gmclist_list.gmcnet.org
>

--
Bruce Hart
1976 Palm Beach
Milliken, Co
GMC=Got More Class
 
What will usually shut you down are rubber parts that are aged --- hoses belts and tires. Air springs are an unknown and some checked ones still keep
going. The most neglected things are greasing as Matt said earlier and coolant changes every 2 years drain /fill. Personally if the trans fluid looks
proper red on the stick I would not touch it. Many tranmissions have been ruined with the Chinese filters. As long as the old one is not restricted it
does not matter. Many engines die because advance mechanism is all gummed up in the dist as the grease has hardened. I have been driving GM HEI since
1976 and NEVER had a module fail. They fail when the rest of the ign system is neglected or plugs set up wrong. And Welcome.
--
John Lebetski
Woodstock, IL
77 Eleganza II
 
G'day,

I contacted Dan Stuckey regarding this question as he manufactures new frames; below you will find his response published with his
permission.

QUOTE

Hi Rob

It's good to hear from you--hope you are well and prospering.

Re the frame, the traditional wisdom has been that you only jack a GMC up at the rear where the bogeys are attached. Lots of people
have used jacks on other places and you can easily tell that by the lower flange on the side rails being bent upward. The original
frames were mild steel .125" gauge and to be truthful (is there any other way?) I don't find much evidence that doing that has been
all that harmful--yeah, it looks bad but who sees it? I haven't had any of my clients tell me of results of jacking on any place
other than at the bogeys on my frames--I usually warn them to do any jacking only at the bogey brackets--but I would guess that
there wouldn't be much, if any, bending of the flanges if they jacked elsewhere--the rail material is visibly heavier stuff yet it
only adds a couple of hundred pounds to the total weight.

Frame rail set #39 just left my shop a couple of weeks ago. I have been using what we call in Canada a Class H steel that is heat
treated with about twice the tensile strength of the original spec and with a 50% heavier gauge at .188". All my most recent frames
have been galvanized with a process for the most extreme conditions--before that I sandblasted the brand new steel after all the
cutting, drilling, welding and then epoxy primed and painted everything. The galvanizing process is a little more expensive but
worth it, in my opinion. AMOF, I just took two front engine sub frames and one rear sub frame up to the galvanizer last Wed. The
engine sub frames are getting harder to find nowadays (I don't build them from scratch like the main frames) and I had to do some
metal surgery on them before galvanizing. With a fully galvanized frame--engine sub frame, mainframe, and rear sub frame, I think
you could leave your GMC with confidence to your great grandson in your will.

I hope this answers your question--it's probably more information than you wanted to hear.

On a personal note, I had back surgery in March and I'm not supposed to lift anything over 10 kilos--forever. How do you run a GMC
frame replacement business on that condition? The upshot of it all is that I have to get out of the business--know anyone who might
be interested? We're going to try and make it to the Elkhart International in Sept. and maybe make the GMC community aware of
what's happening on that account.

Best regards,

Dan

UNQUOTE

Regards,
Rob M.
Sydney, Australia
AUS '75 Avion - The Blue Streak TZE365V100428
USA '75 Avion - Double Trouble TZE365V100426
USA '77 Kingsley - TZE 267V100808


-----Original Message-----
From: Gmclist [mailto:gmclist-bounces] On Behalf Of Johnny Bridges via Gmclist
Sent: Sunday, July 16, 2017 10:56 PM
To: gmclist
Cc: Johnny Bridges
Subject: Re: [GMCnet] New Owner Questions

"What we have here is a failure to communicate..." Or more correctly a difference in semantics. My take is the frame is obviously
adequate in that
the coaches have lasted this long. It is however much lighter than I'd like... it flexes and is easily bent. I am of the opinion
that GM chassis
engineers lightened it as much as possible. They were overloading the drive line roughly twice what it was originally intended fir
so they took out
what they could. I'd like to drive one of the reframed coaches to see how much a stiffer frame improves the handling, if any.

--johnny
--
76 26' Eleganza(?) with beaucoup mods and add - ons.
Braselton, Ga.
"I forgive them all, save those who hurt the dogs. They must answer to me in hell" - ol Andy, paraphrased

_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://list.gmcnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gmclist_list.gmcnet.org
 
Dennis,

Well researched, thanks!

Regards,
Rob M.
Sydney, Australia
AUS '75 Avion - The Blue Streak TZE365V100428
USA '75 Avion - Double Trouble TZE365V100426
USA '77 Kingsley - TZE 267V100808


-----Original Message-----
From: Gmclist [mailto:gmclist-bounces] On Behalf Of Dennis Sexton
Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2017 10:25 AM
To: gmclist
Subject: Re: [GMCnet] New Owner Questions

Frame changes by production year.

This old thread includes info by Bill Bryant on the frame specs

http://gmc.mybirdfeeder.net/GMCforum/index.php?t=msg&goto=182405&rid=904&srch=Frame

Dennis
 
Gee, just look at what a single adjective like 'flimsy'can do. :lol:
Hal
--
1977 Royale 101348,

1977 Royale 101586, Diesel powered,

1975 Eleganza II, 101230

1974 Eagle Bus 45',w/slideout
 
About a year ago I noticed that the belt line shows the coach sags front and back. About 1/2" on the passenger side and 3/4" on the drivers side. I
have replaced the body pads and the front and backs are not compressed any more than the center. I also raised the front and rear donuts to make up
for the thicker pads.

Here are a few pics with measurements.
http://www.gmcmhphotos.com/photos/g6922-frame-sagging.html

--
Bruce Hislop
ON Canada
77PB, 455 Dick P. rebuilt, DynamicEFI EBL EFI & ESC.
Hubler 1 ton front end
http://www.gmcmhphotos.com/photos/showphoto.php?photo=29001
My Staff says I never listen to them, or something like that
 
Funny thing about steel. It flexes. If it didn't, it would break. It does
have a point of elasticity though. Exceed it, bad stuff happens. Years ago,
I had the opportunity to sit through a presentation by the fellow that
engineered the space needle in Seattle. The main three supporting beams
that are the support frame of the structure were originally straight beams.
They were curved to shape using large "rosebud" oxy/acetylene torches under
the watchful eye of the lead engineer. Amazing how much those beams are
curved. I am ever mindful of that every time I weld or heat metal. If you
put heat on one side, you had better put some on the other side as well. I
don't think there is any way to keep it in place while you weld it, you
just have to tack it together, then go back and finish after the assembly
is all tacked. MAYBE THAT IS WHY THE GMC FRAME IS BOLTED, NOT WELDED
TOGETHER. I don't know if that is the reason for sure, but that's my story,
and I'm sticking to it. I'm sure that ease of replacement and assembly
figure in there somewhere, probably cost also.
Jim Hupy
Salem, Or
78 GMC ROYALE 403

Gee, just look at what a single adjective like 'flimsy'can do. :lol:
Hal
--
1977 Royale 101348,

1977 Royale 101586, Diesel powered,

1975 Eleganza II, 101230

1974 Eagle Bus 45',w/slideout

_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://list.gmcnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gmclist_list.gmcnet.org
 
Peer:
You need to talk w/ Kerry Pinkerton (a fellow GMCer) who is a metal bending specialist.
Mike/The Corvair a holic

Sent from my iPhone

>
>
>> They were curved to shape using large "rosebud" oxy/acetylene torches under
>> the watchful eye of the lead engineer.
>
> Any engineer in here know if and how one could bend aluminum profiles,
> like http://klusdesign.eu/produkty/profile-led ?
>
> --
> Best regards
>
> Peer Oliver Schmidt
> the internet company
> PGP Key ID: 0x83E1C2EA
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GMCnet mailing list
> Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
> http://list.gmcnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gmclist_list.gmcnet.org
 
I thought those tape measures in the pictures, like radar detectors, were illegal in Canada. Do you only bring it out after dark when the metric
police have gone home for the day? I sure hope they do not watch GMCnet.

Ken B.
--
Ken Burton - N9KB
76 Palm Beach
Hebron, Indiana
 
Peer,

I Googled Bending Aluminum Extrusions and a number of You Tube video's popped up. One of them used a Harbor Freight bender and
worked OK on some extrusions, however, it depended on the extrusion and the way it was bent.

Regards,
Rob M.
Sydney, Australia
AUS '75 Avion - The Blue Streak TZE365V100428
USA '75 Avion - Double Trouble TZE365V100426
USA '77 Kingsley - TZE 267V100808


-----Original Message-----
From: Gmclist [mailto:gmclist-bounces] On Behalf Of Peer Oliver Schmidt
Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2017 3:49 AM
To: gmclist
Subject: Re: [GMCnet] New Owner Questions

Any engineer in here know if and how one could bend aluminum profiles,
like http://klusdesign.eu/produkty/profile-led ?

--
Best regards

Peer Oliver Schmidt
 
Thanks Bruce. That was a very good article.

Ken B.
--
Ken Burton - N9KB
76 Palm Beach
Hebron, Indiana
 
Hey all, sorry I've been swamped with work and haven't had time to write back. I can't believe the community you guys have here, I really appreciate
the warm welcome and all the great info! I feel a lot better equipped to handle my first few items on the to do list. I'm going to attempt the fluid
changes this week hopefully as I've got some time off, I'll let you all know how it goes. Also I feel a lot better about the transmission now... Might
add an external cooler myself on of these days. Thankfully the PO put a huge radiator in a couple years back, hopefully that helps her far into the
future.

As far as the trans filter, I bought one directly from Sirum down in Florida. I'm assuming he wouldn't sell the chinese kind right? How do I tell?
--
1978 Kingsley
Kansas City, MO
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Get your shine on at www.cruzingear.co
Applied GMC

Share this page

Share this page
Top Bottom
Back